Search This Blog

Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

Reflections on Rochester and Strood

In the post this morning: three communications from UKIP, two from the Conservatives, one from Labour. This is a pretty typical day. Every day brings more confetti through the letterbox, most of it from UKIP and the Conservatives. All of it goes straight in the bin.

I also get emails from the Conservatives, phone calls from the Conservatives, visits from the Conservatives.....I told an opinion pollster who rang recently (yes, I get lots of those too) that the Conservatives look desperate to me. I'm utterly sick of their flood tactics. But now UKIP have adopted the same tactics. Spam, spam, spam. They are nearly as bad as the PPI leeches.

Spamming my letterbox, mailbox and voicemail merely annoys me. I don't need more information. I know what all of the main candidates are offering. Heaven knows, they've told me enough times.

I've read Kelly Tolhurst's six-point plan, headed up by the biggest non-issue of this by-election - immigration. I've read Mark Reckless's insane claim that a party that has no plan for reducing the deficit is somehow more likely to achieve it than one that has spelled it out in gory detail. I've also read Naushabah Khan's sensible local plans which have been unfortunately hijacked by her party's insistence that she must fight the other parties on their own ground.

I'm much less clear about what the other parties are offering. I think during this campaign I have had one leaflet from the Lib Dems, occasional leaflets from independent candidates and none at all from the Greens. Maybe it's because of where I live - the outskirts of Strood are not where the main battle lies. Or maybe it is just that the other parties have all given up prematurely. Whatever. I'm bored with it all anyway. Roll on Thursday.

Oddly enough, given it is only three days until the vote, the media have gone a bit quiet this week. Maybe they are bored with it too. A week ago, the BBC was busy promoting the idea that this by-election was all about immigration. Here is Louise Stewart, in an article promisingly named "Issues Beyond Immigration":

Perhaps the Rochester and Strood by-election campaign could also be
summed up in three words - Immigration, Immigration, Immigration.

It was always going to be a big issue, given this vote was
triggered by the local MP's defection from the Conservatives to UKIP.

And the headline for BBC South East's televised "Rochester and Strood Debate" announced that although local issues did feature, the debate "really heated up" when immigration was discussed. Apparently this "proved" that this by-election is about immigration, really.

I was in the audience for that debate (if you want to watch it, the iPlayer link is here). Immigration was indeed discussed, and there was a heated debate between Kelly Tolhurst and Naushabah Khan about the Coalition's record on controlling immigration. But as they were arguing, the audience went quiet. I looked around. They were mostly disengaged. The energy from the audience had dissipated. Suddenly what had been a lively discussion of local issues had become a national media circus.

I thought maybe it was just the impression I gained at the time, so I watched the broadcast as well. The same impression remained. Politicians were arguing about the issues their head offices had told them to discuss (and the media liked) while local voters looked on, disengaged and unimpressed.

A few days later I discussed the programme with one of my students who had been in the row behind me in the debate.

"Was it just me, or was the audience really bored during the discussion of immigration?" I asked.

"Not bored, exactly," said my student. "It just seemed pointless. It's not what we are interested in".

Other people I spoke to echoed this. And the lady who asked the question in the broadcast itself summed it up:

"I don't think immigration is the big issue it is being made out to be", she said. "And I think the real concerns of local people are not being heard".

Indeed they are not. Recent reports on the by-election have focused entirely on how awful it will be for David Cameron if UKIP wins. The Telegraph wrote a piece called "Rochester and Strood by-election explained" which completely omitted any mention of local concerns in Rochester and Strood. And a nice piece in the Guardian about a local shop's straw (or rather sweet) poll degenerated into party politics. No wonder people in Rochester and Strood are cross.

To her credit, Louise Stewart did say that her own impression was that immigration wasn't the main issue:

Slightly further out residents in Hoo are worried about plans
to build 5,000 homes at Lodge Hill - on a Site of Special Scientific
Interest - and the Green Party and Liberal Democrats have made fighting
it one of their key policies.

The other big bugbear seems to be traffic management -
businesses say they're suffering due to the long-standing traffic
hold-ups on Medway's biggest trading estate, worsened by what they
describe as "incompetent" highways management of roadworks nearby.

Yup, that's more like it. Medway Hospital, the Lodge Hill development and traffic jams. Had this by-election been six months earlier, the list would have included the Estuary Airport proposal, which was - and remains - unbelievably unpopular with local people. It's not about immigration. Really, it isn't. It's about this area being a dumping ground for all sorts of political pet projects that can't go anywhere else because of the insane London greenbelt. It's about stupid political ideology that deprives schools and hospitals of resources, squeezes people's incomes and hurts the poor. It's about failure to reform the banks, failure to mend the roads, failure to fix the health service. It is, in short, about the everyday things that affect the lives of ordinary people.

Although I'm not going to vote for him, I have to say that Mark Reckless actually addresses these local concerns well. And if he wins it will be more because of this than the ridiculous UKIP policies. As a Westminster politician he has been something of a joke, but he has been a good constituency MP. He has more personal support than perhaps the media appreciate.

But one thing that came across clearly in the BBC debate was how close Tolhurst and Reckless are. As far as policies are concerned, they are almost indistinguishable. And the Labour candidate wants to play them at their own game. Three parties, all offering pretty much the same menu. Do we vote for posh Mark, chavvy Kelly or clever Naushabah, or waste our votes on a fringe party?

In the end it all comes down to this.We, the voters of Rochester and Strood, are being drowned out by the noise from the media circus and the political Punch and Judy show. If we kick the main parties by re-electing Mark Reckless, it will not be because we are a bunch of racist, sexist xenophobes. It will be because we are angry that what really concerns us is apparently of so little importance to the Westminster elite. They should take note.

Comments

Living just down the road, I am not laying bets on what happens this week or next May. It has all gone erratic. As for the NHS it was at Medway that a consultant told me cheerfully to avoid hospitals at all costs

"Yup, that's more like it. Medway Hospital, the Lodge Hill development and traffic jams. Had this by-election been six months earlier, the list would have included the Estuary Airport proposal, which was - and remains - unbelievably unpopular with local people. It's not about immigration."

I get that you don't like mainstream (or UKIP policies). But I can't see that you have any policies for Strood and Rochester apart from "don't build anything here ever." No airport, no housing, nothing ever.

There is extensive housebuilding In this area, most of which is sensible. For example, the area that I actually live in (Temple, which is between Strood and the M2) is scheduled for a mixed development of 1500 houses and light industry, and I'm in favour of that. But the Lodge Hill development would put 5000 houses in the middle of nowhere. There is only one road off the Hoo Peninsula and it is already known for its traffic jams: there is no rail link and there are few buses. There is only one secondary school on the Hoo Peninsula and it is already oversubscribed. There is already pressure on health services in the area, too. And the proposed site is a Site of Special Scientific Interest. What is the point of having SSSIs if we ignore them?

Regarding the airport, many of the same objections apply. The area affected included SSSIs, bird sanctuaries and protected wetlands. Building an airport on the breeding grounds of thousands of wading birds is dangerous. Birds can't read eviction notices, and they are fatal to jet engines. But my main objection was the pressure on air traffic in this area. It is perhaps not widely known that a hub airport here would have meant the closure not only of Heathrow but also City airport because of air traffic risks. And even with those closures, air traffic control would be very pressured because of the proximity of Schipol, with obvious risks to life. It's just a terrible idea. And it has now been dropped, thank goodness.

Frances, thanks. You have answered the building question completely. (FWIW, I have always wondered about a major hub airport the wrong side of London from the perspective of most people, and I've been bird watching in Hoo and have some idea of the migrant birds).

Post a comment

Popular posts from this blog

The world is saving like crazy. Corporations are building up cash mountains that they can’t or won’t invest in expanding their businesses. Individuals are building up pensions and precautionary savings. Governments, especially in developing countries, are building up FX reserves. The “savings glut,” as former Fed chairman Ben Bernanke dubbed it, shows no signs of dissipating. It is sloshing around the world looking for a productive home. But there isn’t one - or at least, not one that offers the safety that fearful investors desperately crave. That, fundamentally, is what is driving down the returns on assets.

It is also the primary cause of the wide US trade deficit. The President likes to think that the reason for the US’s persistent trade deficits is unfair trade practices and currency manipulation. And for some countries, these are undoubtedly contributing factors. But the biggest reason by far is the global dominance of the dollar, and above all, the pre-eminence of dollar-deno…

Last night, the Resolution Foundation hosted a debate to launch my book, "The Case for People's Quantitative Easing". A great panel consisting of Jagjit Chadha, Director of NIESR; Fran Boait, Executive Director of Positive Money; and James Smith, Research Director of the Resolution Foundation, debated my ideas with immense verve, ably moderated by Torsten Bell, Chief Executive of the Resolution Foundation. You can watch the debate here.

In 2008, QE did a great job of supporting asset prices and preventing the disastrous deflationary spiral of the 1930s. But since then, enormous quantities of asset purchases by central banks around the world have proved unable to raise aggregate demand and kickstart growth.

Although central banks didn't do a bad job in the last recession, many of the tools they used won't work in the next one, not least because the legacy of the tools themselves has not yet dissipated. Interest rates are on the floor, central bank balance sheets …

Ever since the secured overnight repo rate (SOFR) spiked to 10% in September, there have been dire warnings that these exceptional movements show the financial system is fundamentally broken. The story goes that the post-crisis financial system is so dysfunctional that it is unable to operate without continual injections of money from central banks. The Fed's attempt to reduce the $4.2tn of reserves it added to the financial system in three rounds of QE has dangerously destabilised the financial system, so it has now had to re-start asset purchases to restore the lost reserves and refloat tottering banks.

It's fair to say that much has changed since the financial crisis. Prior to 2008, banks maintained far lower levels of reserves than they do now, typically at or just above their reserve requirement. They borrowed reserves from each other in the unsecured interbank market to settle customer deposit withdrawals and securities transactions. The Federal Reserve intervened in th…